Slashdot Mirror
Netflix Rejects Canadian Regulator Jurisdiction Over Online Video
An anonymous reader writes "Last week's very
public fight between the CRTC and Netflix escalated on Monday
as Netflix refused to comply with Commission's order to supply
certain confidential information including subscriber numbers and
expenditures on Canadian children's content. While the disclosure
concerns revolve around the confidentiality of the data, the far
bigger issue is now whether the CRTC has the legal authority to
order it to do anything at all. Michael Geist reports
that Netflix and Google are ready to challenge it in a case that
could head to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Oh grow the fuck up. CRTC orriginally asked for the minimum required information so they could see if Netflix was properly broadcasting and or producing enough Canadian content. Netflix got their panties in a bunch and said" nope not gonna tell you", CRTC countered with "Ok not gonna give us the percentages then give us the information on Canadian subscribers so we can try for approximate percentages", netflix said "Oh Noes can't competitive infomation." Now it will go to the Supreme Court ... and Netflix will lose because they came to the Canadian market and took Canadian money knowingly and willingly.
Sorry but you want to access the Canadian market - then play by the Canadian rules. Show the regulator that you are broadcasting and or producing the correct percentages of Canadian content.
Former and current employees of Bell and Rogers, members of their former lobbyist groups, and lawyers and other "VIPs" who have strong ties to Rogers and Bell. They're about as neutral on this matter as PM Harper is about his evangelical religious ties. Not very. The CRTC is looking out only for the entrenched players in this market, not consumers. Just yesterday a report came out that once again showed that Canada pays more than any other developed country except Australia for it's wireless phone pricing. The CRTC ignores this fact. Bell and Rogers are the incumbents and don't want anything changed. hell, Rogers has testified in front of the CRTC that wireless rates could be much lower here ... they just don't want to (obviously). And when competition threatens? They twist the CRTC's arm and they are safe again. The CRTC needs too be abolished and we need some real competition up here. The fact that Rogers and Bell so easily control the CRTC and the CRTC just bends over for them and it's decisions is disgusting.
DaveyJJ
Netflix is just posturing here, claiming that they don't want to give out "highly sensitive information that might get leaked to their competitors." Their canadian competitors already have those numbers. If you're Rogers or Bell or Telus or Videotron, you just have to look at your customer's internet traffic to get the stats (and you can be darned sure they've all done this, since they're preparing to set up competing services).
So, since the "sensitive market information" is already easily compilable by their competition in the Canadian market, what's the real reason behind not trying to work out some agreement to provide the numbers? Do the real numbers disprove Netflix's claim that they "provide tons of Canadian support" and already fulfill the requirements?
Or is the real reason the "camel's nose in the tent" argument? That if they give in on this, it creates a precedent that opens the door to more CRTC regulation. That's the only thing that makes sense to me.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Yes, Netflix does not fit that definition of a broadcaster as clarified by the CRTC themselves in 1999:
“Among the services that also do not fall within the scope of the definition of broadcasting are those where the potential for user customization is significant, i.e., services where end-users have an individual, or one-on-one, experience and where they create their own uniquely tailored content. The Commission considers that these types of services do not involve the transmission of programs for reception by the public and are, therefore, not broadcasting.”
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/1999/pb99-84.htm